News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

I know quite a bit of Eo converts on the west coast that view the councils as (although they are tied to them through their particular churches) historical points of reference which even some of the Ec. Councils were predominantly Councils of value to the west and Byzantium...These friends I speak of would also, I'm sure, back me up in saying that the Saints of the church who Anathematized this or that, were still just men. Granted they lived saintly lives but that does not mean that the proclamations made at these Councils were some how Infallible.

Forgive me for over-generalizing.

I do think, however, that the EO's view the concept of an Ecumenical Council and what it is in the life of the Church a little differently than the OO's view it. I think that may why the OO's tend to be a little more positive toward the idea of ecumenical dialogue. The difference in how we view ecumenical councils was touched on in a thread in the OO section, but I can't recall where it is.

Salpy - would you give a brief explanation?

This is taken from a post by Fr. Peter in another thread:

"I think the whole issue of ecumenicity is different in the OO, and indeed that the EO view is one which developed later during the controversial period as a response to criticisms.

It does not seem to me that the OO tend to say simply 'accept only three councils', in the way that many EO just state 'accept the seven or eight or nine councils'. This is because it seems to me that the OO Fathers have been more concerned to deal with the substance of faith rather than using the councils as either a polemical tool, without reference to their substance. Chalcedon is rejected because it is not considered Orthodox, the issue of ecumenicity is not the main one. Indeed all Imperial councils were called as being ecumenical, this did not mean what it has later come to mean within EOxy.

...

I do consider Ephesus II important within the OO tradition, but ecumenicity is not understood in the same way. Indeed I believe that it is in modern times that the EO has come to consider the councils an infallible authority over and above the Church, in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church have defined the Pope as the infallible authority over and above the Church, and Protestants have defined the Bible as the infallible authority over and above the Church. I believe that OOxy preserves the teaching that it is the Holy Spirit alone who is over and above the Church and who is the only infallible foundation of the life of the Church.

This allows OOxy to recognise both the human and divine aspect in all conciliar activity, while EOxy seems to me to be truly monophysite or docetic in its view of some councils by eliminating the human aspect and making the council little different to the means by which the Koran was apparently produced. I do not say this polemically, but because it does seem to me that this is the case.

...

Within OOxy I believe that councils are accepted as authoritative in so far as they expound the truth, in so far as they are Orthodox, and that which is not Orthodox is passed over and that which is Orthodox is simply a re-iteration of that which has always been true. It is quite possible for me to find some things to criticise in the Acts of the Second Council while also considering it essentially Orthodox and authoritative. It is even possible for me to find those things with which I agree in Chalcedon and pass over the rest, or understand it within a context. This is because the Holy Spirit does not overwhelm human activity but works through human agency.

Yet it seems to me, from over 15 years discussion with many EO, that it is much harder for the EO to be reflective in regard to the councils since they must either be entirely true (though no-one can tell me authoritatively what that includes) or are false. This seems to me to be a wrong attitude towards the councils, indeed any conciliar activity and stands in the way of unity and agreement. It is even necessary to show that if Chalcedon must be accepted entirely as a divine work in all of its statements, and if to reject any part of it is to fail to be Orthodox (and many EO have said this to me) then Pope Leo is not Orthodox because he always rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

This does not seem to me to be absolutely problematic in an OO context, since the OO Fathers, it seems to me, would want to ask what a person did believe about the issue in view, not what they thought about something that a council had said. It was not so important to St Cyril, that John of Antioch accept that Ephesus I was 'ecumenical', it was more important that he thought in an acceptably Orthodox manner about the issue that Ephesus I tried to deal with. This seems to me to be different to the modern EO view which I have often met with, which says 'accept the seven councils' even while the person insisting on this does not actually have a clue what the seven councils stand for.

...

it seems to me that the OO would see that the Holy Spirit can work in such situations, but it does not seem to me that such events should be set up as infallible and above the Church. What does infallible mean? Surely we should be asking only how far the councils represented that which is true, that is all that matters. If the label of infallible is added in modern times simply to mean that no questions can be asked, then it seems that there is something wrong and that there is a difference in view between the EO and OO..."

"I think that the case of Constantinople 381 allows us to see that ecumenical first had the meaning of a universal gathering of bishops from across the Empire to deal with a matter of concern to the whole Church and Empire. That it then came to mean a council which had a lasting authority throughout the Empire, and then finally to the concept that it was infallible in every word and aspect and must be received as a divine fiat.

...

in my opinion the OO preserve the middle concept in which a council has authority because it is true and because it represents the mind of the universal Church. I don't see that the OO have developed the later concept in regard to councils, though this does not mean that those councils which are considered authoritative are not greatly respected, especially Nicaea and Ephesus I, and then at some time between the 4th and 6th centuries also Constantinople 381. (I don't know when we started using the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version of the creed). But they are understood as events within the life of the Church and as manifestations of the conciliar activity in the Church seen in a continuum from the humblest local synod of a minor bishop, through metropolitan synods, up to universal councils of bishops from the whole empire. It is the same Holy Spirit at work, and the same humanity which sometimes obscures and confuses the work of the Spirit. Yet when there is that which is seen to be true then it is recognised by the Church and has the authority of the truth, no further authority is needed."

1. We the Dyophysites (Orthodox and Roman Catholic) believe that Christ has two natures, human and divine.

2. The classical Monophysite position was the Christ had one divine nature.

3. The Myaphysite position is that Christ is human and divine in one nature.

Now, may I ask a question which could cause conniptions in some of our forum members.

During the time of Pope John Paul II the dialogue with the Myaphysite Churches succeeded in demonstrating to Rome that their Christology was identical. In other words (and this seems a bit of a paradox!) Myaphysitism and Dyophysitism are one and the same.

Could someone from the Myaphysite Churches guide us through all this -- how was this decision reached theologically with Rome and how has it been expressed/formulated.

And the all important question from the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint: Is this agreement as to Christology between Rome and the Myaphysites acceptable/convincing for the EO? Are there any Orthodox responses?

1. We the Dyophysites (Orthodox and Roman Catholic) believe that Christ has two natures, human and divine.

2. The classical Monophysite position was the Christ had one divine nature.

3. The Myaphysite position is that Christ is human and divine in one nature.

Now, may I ask a question which could cause conniptions in some of our forum members.

During the time of Pope John Paul II the dialogue with the Myaphysite Churches succeeded in demonstrating to Rome that their Christology was identical. In other words (and this seems a bit of a paradox!) Myaphysitism and Dyophysitism are one and the same.

Could someone from the Myaphysite Churches guide us through all this -- how was this decision reached theologically with Rome and how has it been expressed/formulated.

And the all important question from the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint: Is this agreement as to Christology between Rome and the Myaphysites acceptable/convincing for the EO? Are there any Orthodox responses?

I've only read the first dialogue that occurred between the Catholics and the OO on Christology. Basically, they used the OO/EO unofficial agreements as a source of discussion to guide them through an agreement. From what I understand, the agreement never reached the extent of defining the acceptance of councils with EO/OO dialogues, since the Roman Catholic interpretation of Chalcedon is quite different and requires Petrine Primacy to be mingled in with the beliefs. Nevertheless, despite these differences, in the end an agreement at least on Christology has been made.

Recently however, the Coptic Church is questioning that agreement due to Catholic/Assyrian agreement on Christology, and so while they haven't officially revoked it, they are working with Catholics to go back to square one on Christology and understand why they made that decision.

The expression of the Catholic/Coptic agreement is actually taken with cross reference to the Coptic Great Confession before the Eucharist, and it goes like this:

Quote

We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate-Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye.

At the same time, we anathematize the Doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches.

That is the only agreement there is between Catholic and Coptic churches, and now the integrity of this agreement is being questioned.

There are other separate similar agreements made by other OO churches, particularly Malankara, Syrian, and Armenian, I believe. There wasn't really a joint OO/Catholic agreement because other matters were dealt like intermarriage and sacramental unity, where we would not accept.

God bless.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 03:14:44 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Recently however, the Coptic Church is questioning that agreement due to Catholic/Assyrian agreement on Christology, and so while they haven't officially revoked it, they are working with Catholics to go back to square one on Christology and understand why they made that decision.

The appropriate Roman Catholic Christology is that Peter is the Rock of the Church, and his throne is in Rome and he is the vicar of Christ. Peter = Pope = Christ. Roman Catholic Christology in a nutshell. Next!

Here's what the Ecumenical Patriarch said a while back (I believe almost a decade back this audio), who expressed optimism in theological understanding between the two, but also believed interestingly enough that we should accept the seven councils, but that also the anathemas must be mutually lifted:

I think though that the acceptance of councils and the lifting of anathemas seem to contradict. If he's saying to accept the dogmas behind them without regard of all the canons and all those minutes and condemnations made against our Church, then in my opinion, they have always been accepted.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Recently however, the Coptic Church is questioning that agreement due to Catholic/Assyrian agreement on Christology, and so while they haven't officially revoked it, they are working with Catholics to go back to square one on Christology and understand why they made that decision.

The appropriate Roman Catholic Christology is that Peter is the Rock of the Church, and his throne is in Rome and he is the vicar of Christ. Peter = Pope = Christ. Roman Catholic Christology in a nutshell. Next!

Here's what the Ecumenical Patriarch said a while back (I believe almost a decade back this audio), who expressed optimism in theological understanding between the two, but also believed interestingly enough that we should accept the seven councils, but that also the anathemas must be mutually lifted:

I think though that the acceptance of councils and the lifting of anathemas seem to contradict. If he's saying to accept the dogmas behind them without regard of all the canons and all those minutes and condemnations made against our Church, then in my opinion, they have always been accepted.

How so? Setting aside the issue of the individual anathemas (not because I agree or disagree with the Patriarch but simply because I don't feel qualified to make a comment at this point) what do you mean by 'always been accepted'?

I'm thinking in particular of the Tome of Leo which EO's considers an Orthodox text but which I thought I had seen some OO's still considered a heretical or at least highly questionable text. Wouldn't 'formal acceptance' mean a synodical statement (by each OO church) that they agree that the Tome can be and is to be read and understood in an Orthodox manner? (something like the agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch about how the decisions of Ephesus were to be understood)

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

I'm thinking in particular of the Tome of Leo which EO's considers an Orthodox text but which I thought I had seen some OO's still considered a heretical

Yes, this is very true of the theologian Fr Paul Verghese (Metropolitan Paulos Gregorios.) He considers "the Sixth Council which appears to us badly muddled, not to say in grievous error" Regarding the dogmatic definition of the 6th Council, he states:

Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration. The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us (Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?)

We are unable to say what this council says when it affirms "two wills and two operations concurring most fitly in him"....

To summarize: Acceptance of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the acceptance of Chalcedon. The following are the chief reasons:...

b) We are unable to accept the dithelete formula, attributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis. We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord.

c) We find that this Sixth Council exalts as its standard mainly the teaching of Leo and Agatho, popes of Rome, paying only lip-service to the teachings of the Blessed Cyril. We regard Leo as a heretic for his teaching that the will and operation of Christ is to be attributed to the two natures of Christ rather than to the one hypostasis. The human nature is as "natural" to Christ the incarnate Word as is the divine. It is one hypostasis who now is both divine and human, and all the activities come from the one hypostasis (Review, pp. 140-141; Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?)

Here's what the Ecumenical Patriarch said a while back (I believe almost a decade back this audio), who expressed optimism in theological understanding between the two, but also believed interestingly enough that we should accept the seven councils, but that also the anathemas must be mutually lifted:

I think though that the acceptance of councils and the lifting of anathemas seem to contradict. If he's saying to accept the dogmas behind them without regard of all the canons and all those minutes and condemnations made against our Church, then in my opinion, they have always been accepted.

How so? Setting aside the issue of the individual anathemas (not because I agree or disagree with the Patriarch but simply because I don't feel qualified to make a comment at this point) what do you mean by 'always been accepted'?

I'm thinking in particular of the Tome of Leo which EO's considers an Orthodox text but which I thought I had seen some OO's still considered a heretical or at least highly questionable text. Wouldn't 'formal acceptance' mean a synodical statement (by each OO church) that they agree that the Tome can be and is to be read and understood in an Orthodox manner? (something like the agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch about how the decisions of Ephesus were to be understood)

Well, I don't want to get too much detail, but the summary of all the dialogues we had, official and unofficial can be read here:

As for the Councils and their authority for the tradition, we all agreethat the Councils should be seen as charismatic events in the life of theChurch rather than as an authority over the Church; where some Councils areacknowledged as true Councils, whether as ecumenical or as local, by theChurch's tradition, their authority is to be seen as coming from the HolySpirit. Distinction is to be made not only between the doctrinal definitionsand canonical legislations of a Council, but also between the true intentionof the dogmatic definition of a Council and the particular terminology inwhich it is expressed, which latter has less authority than the intention.

Assuming the EP agrees with this, if he asks us to merely accept the intentions of the councils, then by all means, there's no need to even ask. If the intentions have always agreed with our faith, as is the case, then we always accepted. But if it's more than that, then it border-line contradicts the parts where we are to lift anathemas against one another, notably Leo, Dioscorus, and Severus among others:

Quote

The reuniting of the two traditions which have their own separatecontinuity poses certain problems in relation to certain revered teachers ofone family being condemned or anathematized by the other. It may not benecessary formally to lift these anathemas, nor for these teachers to berecognised as Saints by the condemning side. But the restoration of Communionobviously implies, among other things, that formal anathemas and condemnationof revered teachers of the other side should be discontinued as in the case ofLeo, Dioscurus, Severus, and others.

And very clearly in 1990:

Quote

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against allOriental Orthodox councils and fathers whom they have anathematised orcondemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas andcondemnations against all Orthodox councils and fathers whom they haveanathematised or condemned in the past.

So honestly, this means our church has to let's lift anathemas from the four councils, from Leo, from his Tome, based on the intention of Orthodoxy. Likewise, you would probably lift anathemas from Dioscorus, Severus, probably even Ephesus 449 and 475, from their writings, etc. So it's important to understand that this is not one church joining another, but a mutual recognition of one another's share in the Orthodox faith, at least that's how these dialogues are showing it. That's what it means to say "always been accepted."

I know I got suckered in to answer this question in a lengthy manner, but I really really really really hope no one takes this as a debate. This is simply an answer to a question, not an opinion to spark a fight.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I think you opened a can of worms. I think after that post, I have a feeling everything written will be separated from this discussion and put into the private forum.

Soprry, I did not mean to do that. I am really interested in the questions I asked in Message 183, and I appreciated your answers in Message 185. It is clear that I was thinking a bit naively that the christological matter had been settled with the Roman Catholic Church. It has become more complicated than I was aware.

I just got a copy of St. Cyril's "On the Unity of Christ." We of course believe it (us world Orthodox that is). The Copts believe it. Care to explain the difference, Mr. Gress?

Do you wish to discuss Chalcedon, or do you wish to discuss how Chalcedon should shape our understanding of ecumenism? This is a significant distinction.

Me? Neither.

Mr. Gress is rather intent on lumpiing the OO with the heretics by revisiting Chalcedon and sloganeering rather than what has happened since then, i.e. the EO discovery that the Miaphysites are not Eutychians.

Yes, the OO"s have a different view on Chalcedon from the EO, which is a problem. But then so too does the Vatican which accepts the Council and the Protestants who accept it without knowing. And yet I would say with share the same Faith with the former, but not with the latter. It seems to me that Mr. Gress would llump myself and other EO's with all of the above, along with New Calendarists and those on the Old Calendar still in communion with them, although no Ecumenical Council has condemned us (with the plausible exception of my defense of the Miaphysites).

Since he insists that there is a difference between us World EOs and the Miaphysites, I just chose "On the Unity of Christ" as a litmus test: written just over a decade before the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and shortly after the Third by its protagonist, both EO ("World Orthodox" and otherwise). Both Miaphysites and EO claim the work, and St. Cyril (and did so at Chalcedon). Can they both claim him and this work? I would say yes, I presume Mr. Gress would say no, and so I ask him to explain why the Copts, for instance, cannot claim St. Cyril on the basis of this pre-Chalcedon workhttp://books.google.com/books?id=x0Lnu_cm-GAC&pg=PA1&dq=on+the+unity+of+christ+cyril&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false, as a concrete example.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm thinking in particular of the Tome of Leo which EO's considers an Orthodox text but which I thought I had seen some OO's still considered a heretical

Yes, this is very true of the theologian Fr Paul Verghese (Metropolitan Paulos Gregorios.) He considers "the Sixth Council which appears to us badly muddled, not to say in grievous error" Regarding the dogmatic definition of the 6th Council, he states:

Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration. The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us (Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?)

We are unable to say what this council says when it affirms "two wills and two operations concurring most fitly in him"....

To summarize: Acceptance of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the acceptance of Chalcedon. The following are the chief reasons:...

b) We are unable to accept the dithelete formula, attributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis. We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord.

c) We find that this Sixth Council exalts as its standard mainly the teaching of Leo and Agatho, popes of Rome, paying only lip-service to the teachings of the Blessed Cyril. We regard Leo as a heretic for his teaching that the will and operation of Christ is to be attributed to the two natures of Christ rather than to the one hypostasis. The human nature is as "natural" to Christ the incarnate Word as is the divine. It is one hypostasis who now is both divine and human, and all the activities come from the one hypostasis (Review, pp. 140-141; Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?)

We had a lengthy inter-EO discussion on this in the private forums: " Jesus Christ the God-Man, A Divine Person, Also a Human Person?" It would seem that this isn't an issue that divides EO from OO (but EO from EO, and OO from OO?).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Another question. Have you considered that maybe these Antiochian theologians feel that they are not contradicting those quotes you are giving? Have you considered that maybe the "iota" you're quoting from is not the "iota" I was thinking?

No, of course not. Obviously, once again, you make assumptions. Do you notice how many EO's here in this thread could use these quotes against you (in fact, have implied that you are outside the true faith), one of them being Fr. Ambrose?

But you still don't get it. You don't delve much deeper into the issue because either you're afraid or you like to remain ignorant.

If you still don't get it, Jonathan, Salpy is right. There's no point in trying to make you understand.

Whether or not they 'feel' they are upholding the dogmas of the Seven Councils, I am demonstrating as an objective fact that they are not upholding them.

I'd be interested to see just how Fr Ambrose uses these quotes against me, considering that I am not in the World Council of Churches, consider the anathemas against the Latin church still to be in force so long as they continue to teach their non-Orthodox doctrines, and that I continue to believe in all the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils and hence do not recognize the Orthodoxy of non-Chalcedonians.

Objective? Hardly! Objective is trying to understand and address WHY....WHY....again...WHY they believe the way they do, and then make your argument.

Fr. Ambrose already explained it to you. He felt his church does it no differently than St. Mark.

Well 'why' the Synod of Antioch did what it did is another matter. For that, you can read their statement, and the theological justifications in earlier documents like the statement of the Chambesy conference. But for my purposes I only need to demonstrate that the Synod made the decision it did, since that is all I need to know that they have trampled on the conciliar dogmas.

Is it dogma of the Sixth Council that the Fourth Council anathematized Pope Dioscoros as a heretic? Because the Fourth Council did no such thing.

Quote

I don't know how you feel about the Ecumenical Councils, but among the Orthodox the dogmas of the Seven Councils are considered immutable, since they represent the voice of the Holy Spirit.

By which Council do you anathematize the Miaphysites, as they are NOT Eutychians?

« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 09:44:10 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The point I'm trying to make here is this: you, a non-Chalcedonian, obviously have your beliefs about Christ, and I have my beliefs. My beliefs follow the dogma of Chalcedon, which I consider to be an Ecumenical Council and to express the voice of the whole Church, the voice of the Holy Spirit in other words. It's clear you do not accept it as the voice of the Holy Spirit, and I respect your decision. Faith is an act of free will. However, what I cannot accept is the argument that you and I have the same faith, when you can't even answer a simple question like I just gave you. Since we manifestly do not have the same faith, the decision of the Synod of Antioch cannot possibly be correct insofar as it is based on the assumption of shared faith.

Then it should be an equally simple question to ask: do the Miaphysites share the same Faith of Pope St. Cyril?

« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 09:58:13 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm sorry the way this has turned into an EO/OO discussion. I am not interested in proving to the OO that they are heretics. I am not even interested in going to special lengths to prove to EO that they do not share the same faith as the OO, because I take it to be self-evident that the EO and the OO do not share the same faith by the simple fact that the EO consider the Chalcedonian dogma to be Orthodox, but the OO do not. As IH noted, this also means the OO do not accept the Orthodox teaching that Christ has two wills corresponding to His two natures. I am interested only in proving to conservative New Calendarist Orthodox, who believe in traditional Orthodox teaching but deny that their hierarchs have fallen into ecumenism, that in fact they are mistaken and that their hierarchs _have_ fallen into ecumenism. One example of their hierarchs' fall is the decision of the Synod of Antioch to recognize the mysteries of the non-Chalcedonians.

If you take it as self-evident that the EO and the OO have different doctrines, as I do, then of course any evidence that EO hierarchs deny this difference is evidence of ecumenism. If you try to claim that the EO hierarchs did nothing wrong, because in fact we do share the same faith as the OO, that only tells me that you have succumbed to ecumenism yourself.

I'm sorry the way this has turned into an EO/OO discussion. I am not interested in proving to the OO that they are heretics. I am not even interested in going to special lengths to prove to EO that they do not share the same faith as the OO, because I take it to be self-evident that the EO and the OO do not share the same faith by the simple fact that the EO consider the Chalcedonian dogma to be Orthodox, but the OO do not. As IH noted, this also means the OO do not accept the Orthodox teaching that Christ has two wills corresponding to His two natures. I am interested only in proving to conservative New Calendarist Orthodox, who believe in traditional Orthodox teaching but deny that their hierarchs have fallen into ecumenism, that in fact they are mistaken and that their hierarchs _have_ fallen into ecumenism. One example of their hierarchs' fall is the decision of the Synod of Antioch to recognize the mysteries of the non-Chalcedonians.

If you take it as self-evident that the EO and the OO have different doctrines, as I do, then of course any evidence that EO hierarchs deny this difference is evidence of ecumenism. If you try to claim that the EO hierarchs did nothing wrong, because in fact we do share the same faith as the OO, that only tells me that you have succumbed to ecumenism yourself.

You have side stepped the question again. The question was simple: do the present day Copts share the same Faith with Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm sorry the way this has turned into an EO/OO discussion. I am not interested in proving to the OO that they are heretics. I am not even interested in going to special lengths to prove to EO that they do not share the same faith as the OO, because I take it to be self-evident that the EO and the OO do not share the same faith by the simple fact that the EO consider the Chalcedonian dogma to be Orthodox, but the OO do not. As IH noted, this also means the OO do not accept the Orthodox teaching that Christ has two wills corresponding to His two natures. I am interested only in proving to conservative New Calendarist Orthodox, who believe in traditional Orthodox teaching but deny that their hierarchs have fallen into ecumenism, that in fact they are mistaken and that their hierarchs _have_ fallen into ecumenism. One example of their hierarchs' fall is the decision of the Synod of Antioch to recognize the mysteries of the non-Chalcedonians.

If you take it as self-evident that the EO and the OO have different doctrines, as I do, then of course any evidence that EO hierarchs deny this difference is evidence of ecumenism. If you try to claim that the EO hierarchs did nothing wrong, because in fact we do share the same faith as the OO, that only tells me that you have succumbed to ecumenism yourself.

You have side stepped the question again. The question was simple: do the present day Copts share the same Faith with Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria?

As far as I am concerned, and as far as any traditionally minded Orthodox Christian is concerned, no they do not, because the faith of St Cyril, that is, the Orthodox faith, was determined for us by the Ecumenical Councils, including Chalcedon and subsequent councils.

I'm sorry the way this has turned into an EO/OO discussion. I am not interested in proving to the OO that they are heretics. I am not even interested in going to special lengths to prove to EO that they do not share the same faith as the OO, because I take it to be self-evident that the EO and the OO do not share the same faith by the simple fact that the EO consider the Chalcedonian dogma to be Orthodox, but the OO do not. As IH noted, this also means the OO do not accept the Orthodox teaching that Christ has two wills corresponding to His two natures. I am interested only in proving to conservative New Calendarist Orthodox, who believe in traditional Orthodox teaching but deny that their hierarchs have fallen into ecumenism, that in fact they are mistaken and that their hierarchs _have_ fallen into ecumenism. One example of their hierarchs' fall is the decision of the Synod of Antioch to recognize the mysteries of the non-Chalcedonians.

If you take it as self-evident that the EO and the OO have different doctrines, as I do, then of course any evidence that EO hierarchs deny this difference is evidence of ecumenism. If you try to claim that the EO hierarchs did nothing wrong, because in fact we do share the same faith as the OO, that only tells me that you have succumbed to ecumenism yourself.

You have side stepped the question again. The question was simple: do the present day Copts share the same Faith with Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria?

As far as I am concerned, and as far as any traditionally minded Orthodox Christian is concerned,

traditionally minded is distinguished from fossilized and reactionary.

Quote

no they do not, because the faith of St Cyril, that is, the Orthodox faith, was determined for us by the Ecumenical Councils, including Chalcedon and subsequent councils.

St. Cyril taught his last before Chalcedon. Pope Dioscoros defended St. Cyril at Chalcedon, and St. Cyril supplied the Miaphysites with their slogan: μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, merely parroting about the Ecumenical Councils and Orthodoxy doesn't make your point, any more than Pope Vigilius pointing to the "exhoneration" of Theodoret and Ibas supported his opposition to the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

ialmisry, I already said that I am not going to debate with those who believe the EO and OO share the same faith, because I take it as self-evident, for the purposes of discussion of ecumenism, that they do not. Some other time I will explain to you why an Orthodox Christian must believe in the dogmas as determined by the Seven Councils: right now, I'm taking that as a given. Can you please respect that?

ialmisry, I already said that I am not going to debate with those who believe the EO and OO share the same faith, because I take it as self-evident, for the purposes of discussion of ecumenism, that they do not.

I am afraid that parroting slogans doesn't make discussion.

Quote

Some other time I will explain to you why an Orthodox Christian must believe in the dogmas as determined by the Seven Councils: right now, I'm taking that as a given. Can you please respect that?

On a thread entitled "DISCUSSION on Ecumenism?" No.

You state as a given that the OO and the EO do not share the same Faith, yet both claim to share the same Faith as Pope St. Cyril. The Vatican and Protestants claim the same, but that is easily refuted, as St. Cyril believed neither in Ultramontanism nor Sola Scriptura, the basis of those two communions. The Nestorians, of course, make no such claim.

You base your argument on an unproven assumption. That's a discussion based on sand, not rock.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 01:04:29 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

ialmisry, I already said that I am not going to debate with those who believe the EO and OO share the same faith, because I take it as self-evident, for the purposes of discussion of ecumenism, that they do not.

I am afraid that parroting slogans doesn't make discussion.

Indeed. The non formal-acceptance of the later Synods (4-8 or 9, not merely 4-7) does not indicate a non-acceptance of the theology proclaimed by them; in fact, IIRC many OO clergy (& Saints?) draw upon the Saints of & conclusions of the 5th-8th/9th Synods... Why don't you formally ask any here who are familiar with OO theology whether they accept the theology of Synods 5-8/9 point-by-point (that is, ask them point-by-point)? I think you'll find Theological agreement; and even Theological agreement on 4 when considered in the context of 3-5.

It seems there is not one other person posting on this thread who believes in upholding the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, which I had always thought was necessary to be included in the fold of the Orthodox Church.

If the OO believed in the faith of Chalcedon, they would accept the dogma of Chalcedon. They do not accept the dogma of Chalcedon, therefore they do not hold the faith of Chalcedon. Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders.

It seems there is not one other person posting on this thread who believes in upholding the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, which I had always thought was necessary to be included in the fold of the Orthodox Church.

That's unnecessarily polemical - no one here is advocating abrogating the faith in even one small bit. But before you declare that someone else doesn't have the same faith, you should ask them if they accept the faith. Ask them.

If the OO believed in the faith of Chalcedon, they would accept the dogma of Chalcedon. They do not accept the dogma of Chalcedon, therefore they do not hold the faith of Chalcedon. Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders.

Who said they don't accept the dogma of Chalcedon? They rejected it at first, but do they reject it now? Ask them.

It seems there is not one other person posting on this thread who believes in upholding the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, which I had always thought was necessary to be included in the fold of the Orthodox Church.

If the OO believed in the faith of Chalcedon, they would accept the dogma of Chalcedon. They do not accept the dogma of Chalcedon, therefore they do not hold the faith of Chalcedon. Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders.

I wasn't aware that the Diet of Worms was an Ecumenical Council, or is your ecumenism showing?

I for one believe in upholding the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, as I swore when I entered the fold of the Orthdoox Church.

The supportes of the Three Chapters made the same argument you do against the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It seems there is not one other person posting on this thread who believes in upholding the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, which I had always thought was necessary to be included in the fold of the Orthodox Church.

If the OO believed in the faith of Chalcedon, they would accept the dogma of Chalcedon. They do not accept the dogma of Chalcedon, therefore they do not hold the faith of Chalcedon. Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders.

I wasn't aware that the Diet of Worms was an Ecumenical Council, or is your ecumenism showing?

I for one believe in upholding the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, as I swore when I entered the fold of the Orthdoox Church.

The supportes of the Three Chapters made the same argument you do against the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Sorry ialmisry I didn't realize that would offend your Orthodox sensibilities. Obviously you are so zealous for Orthodoxy you wouldn't even quote something theologically neutral if it had been said by a heretic.

I'm certainly glad to hear you uphold the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils. I was beginning to wonder, I admit.

I'll say it one more time: I am not going to debate whether the EO and OO have different teachings. I am adamant they do. What I am prepared to debate is whether EO hierarchs have in fact denied that the OO have different teachings, that they are in fact Orthodox, and that they have recognized the mysteries of the OO and allowed communion between the OO and the EO. I believe I have proved this by the example of the decision of the Synod of Antioch in 1991, but if anyone wants to dispute this, let them.

Can we please move on to something else? I think the subject of the 1965 lifting of the anathemas against the Pope is an interesting topic. Questions to consider: how do we know that Patriarch Michael Cerularius excommunicated the Pope? On what grounds did he excommunicate the Pope? Is Metropolitan Philaret correct that lifting these anathemas constitutes an assertion of the Orthodoxy of the Pope, at least with respect to the doctrines for which the Pope was supposedly anathematized?

quote: do the present day Copts share the same Faith with Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria?

Jonathon Gress: *I prefer to refrain from answering a question that directly confounds my current standing on a subject which is pertinent to the topic we are discussing. By doing so would assist in the dismantling of my current belief structure. So from here on out folks, only ask me questions which do not conflict with my train of thought, or I will continue to dodge by neither confirming nor denying.

quote: do the present day Copts share the same Faith with Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria?

Jonathon Gress: *I prefer to refrain from answering a question that directly confounds my current standing on a subject which is pertinent to the topic we are discussing. By doing so would assist in the dismantling of my current belief structure. So from here on out folks, only ask me questions which do not conflict with my train of thought, or I will continue to dodge by neither confirming nor denying.

*politricks

Yes sg you have it exactly right. I am an Orthodox Christian, I believe in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Nothing will make me budge. I really wonder why those who deny the importance of the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon don't just join the non-Chalcedonians, since as far as I can tell, their denial of the salvific efficacy of the Chalcedonian dogma reflects the OO teachings much more than the EO teachings.

I'll say it one more time: I am not going to debate whether the EO and OO have different teachings. I am adamant they do.

This is a fundamental presupposition for you, but it has not been proven to others (in fact, it is squarely in the center of the debate now). As long as the point goes unproven (i.e. until you provide evidence supporting this point), I fear no one can engage in a conversation that uses this point as a presupposition.

quote: do the present day Copts share the same Faith with Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria?

Jonathon Gress: *I prefer to refrain from answering a question that directly confounds my current standing on a subject which is pertinent to the topic we are discussing. By doing so would assist in the dismantling of my current belief structure. So from here on out folks, only ask me questions which do not conflict with my train of thought, or I will continue to dodge by neither confirming nor denying.

*politricks

Yes sg you have it exactly right. I am an Orthodox Christian, I believe in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Nothing will make me budge. I really wonder why those who deny the importance of the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon don't just join the non-Chalcedonians, since as far as I can tell, their denial of the salvific efficacy of the Chalcedonian dogma reflects the OO teachings much more than the EO teachings.

Johnathan, according to your unmovable belief in the Seven Ecumenical Councils, do you believe that your particular branch of the GOC is the only remainder of the Orthodox Church on earth?

I am an Orthodox Christian, I believe in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Nothing will make me budge.

No one is asking you to budge. Heck, no one is attempting to argue against the Faith in God expounded by the Seven Ecumenical Councils (BTW: they said "I believe in One God, Father, Almighty..." not "I believe in the First Ecumenical Council").

I really wonder why those who deny the importance of the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon don't just join the non-Chalcedonians, since as far as I can tell, their denial of the salvific efficacy of the Chalcedonian dogma reflects the OO teachings much more than the EO teachings.

No one is arguing with you against the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon as seen through the lenses of Synods 5-7 + the Fathers + Tradition in this thread, just as no one argues with the Creed of Nicea as seen through the lenses of 2-7 + the Fathers + Tradition, and no one argues with the Scripture as seen through the lenses of 1-7 + the Fathers + Tradition. The argument is against your assumed fact that the OO "have different teachings."

Thank You Fr. George - I find it interesting how quickly Jonathan can throw stones...

(quote:Nothing will make me budge. I really wonder why those who deny the importance of the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon don't just join the non-Chalcedonians, since as far as I can tell, their denial of the salvific efficacy of the Chalcedonian dogma reflects the OO teachings much more than the EO teachings)

...without asking the people he's discussing with, what their beliefs are.

I'll say it one more time: I am not going to debate whether the EO and OO have different teachings. I am adamant they do.

This is a fundamental presupposition for you, but it has not been proven to others (in fact, it is squarely in the center of the debate now). As long as the point goes unproven (i.e. until you provide evidence supporting this point), I fear no one can engage in a conversation that uses this point as a presupposition.

Fr George, it's proven by the fact that the OO do not accept the definition of Chalcedon, that I copied and pasted in an earlier post. The dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils are binding on the Orthodox, which I would have thought you knew already, being a priest. Therefore we Orthodox believe in the definition of Chalcedon, while the OO do not. Hence we do not share the same doctrine. Therefore recognition of OO mysteries is an example of ecumenist teaching, which as we know is the teaching that the dogmas of the Orthodox Church are not necessary for salvation and cannot be used to determine who is in the Church and who is outside the Church.

No man shall say that the holy flesh, which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which He Himself knows, was different to and foreign from our body. And, indeed, since this is so, they who affirm that Christ did not become incarnate for us, give the lie to Paul. For he has said, 'Not from angels did He take (the nature), but from the seed of the House of Abraham'; to which seed Mary was no stranger, as the Scriptures teach us. And again,' It was right that in everything He should be made like unto His brethren,' and that word 'in everything' does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature: since in nerves, and hair, and bones, and veins, and belly, and heart, and kidneys, and liver, and lungs, and, in short, in all those things that belong to our nature, the flesh which was born from Mary was compacted with the soul of our Redeemer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man, and the gratification and cohabitation of sleep....For if, as the heretics think, this was not so, how is He named 'our brother,' supposing that He used a body different from ours ? And how, again, is that true which He said to His Father, 'I will declare Thy name to my brethren?' Let us not reject, neither let us despise, those who think in this way. For He was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, nor in mere semblance, according to the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from Mary, the Theotokos. To comfort the desolate and to repair the vessel that had been broken, He came to us new. And as Emmanuel, indeed, He is confessed; for He became poor for us, according to the saying of Paul, 'that we, by His humiliation, might be made rich.' He became, by the dispensation, like us; that we, by His tender mercy, might be like Him. He became man, and yet He did not destroy that which is His nature, that He is Son of God; that we, by grace, might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and, if any man does not think thus, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Just a general note based on the most cursory of readings: Any attempt to show exactly how the OO are not Orthodox beyond what Jonathan is willing to argue technically falls outside the scope of this thread and would be more appropriate in a separate thread on the Eastern-Oriental Private Forum. I'll look more closely into this later this afternoon, but on the surface it looks as if Jonathan is trying merely to tie his beliefs regarding the OO into his arguments against ecumenism and save his arguments against Oriental Orthodox belief in and of itself for another day. Please respect that.

Fr George, it's proven by the fact that the OO do not accept the definition of Chalcedon, that I copied and pasted in an earlier post.

I didn't bother reading your pages of copied text. Summarize for me - I'm a bit too busy to get through it all. Specifically - do your sources claim, based on the position of the OO Church now, that they do not believe in the Faith expounded by the 7 Ecumenical Councils?

The dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils are binding on the Orthodox, which I would have thought you knew already, being a priest.

My, my - how condescending. I am fully aware of the fact, and have had to re-affirm it no less than almost 2 months ago when I pledged to follow all the Ecumenical Councils, Canons, decisions of my bishop, etc.

Therefore we Orthodox believe in the definition of Chalcedon, while the OO do not. Hence we do not share the same doctrine.

You should say "we Orthodox believe the definition of Chalcedon," or "we Orthodox believe in the faith expounded by the definition of Chalcedon," not "we believe in the definition of Chalcedon," since we "believe IN one God, Father, Almighty..." Are you sure that the OO Church does not actually believe in the same faith of Chalcedon, Constantinople, Nicea, and Ephesus that we do?